TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed u/s. 263 by Commissioner of the Income Tax (Exemption) Pune at Nagpur is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 2. The learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Exemption) Pune at Nagpur ought to have considered that order passed u/s. 143(3) by the assessing officer in which all the issues were discussed and considered all the issues at the time of assessment proceedings and the assessing officer has considering all the aspect and made addition, therefore order passed by the Commissioner of the Income Tax (Exemption) Pune at Nagpur is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 3. The learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Exemption) Pune at Nagpur ought to have considered order passed u/s. 143(3) by the assessing officer is not erroneous and not prejudicial in the interest of revenue. Therefore, order passed u/s. 263 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 4. The learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Exemption) Pune at Nagpur has not considered the entire written submission of the assessee and passed the order u/s. 263 without going into merits of the case; therefore, addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 5. The learned Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee submitted that due to above reason appeal is being filed on 19/03/2025 along with delay application therefore there is delay of 1431 days, which deserves and be condoned. The delay is not intentional or deliberate and may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if the case is heard and decided on merits. The ld. Counsel also filed list of various case law in support of his arguments on delay. 4. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue argued that there is long delay in filing appeal and the cause of delay is not good cause. The delay may not be condoned. 5. We have heard counsel for both the parties on delay and perused the material placed on record, and the judgment cited before us on application seeking condonation of delay. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles on law of Limitation, laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court including in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors vs Mst. Katiji & Ors 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities of non-delibe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such receipts are directly credited to Corpus Fund Account and further endorsed to balance sheet. The ld. CIT (E) was of the view that the receipts of Rs. 47,48,027/- ought to have been charged to tax for A.Y. 2015-16. The assessment order was held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessment order was set aside with the direction to pass fresh assessment order. 8. Aggrieved by the order u/s 263 of the Act the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. The Ground Nos. 2 To 5 raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(E) in invoking the provisions u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. counsel for the assessee strongly objected on the validity of order of CIT(E) and argued that during assessment all the issues have been considered and also verified by the AO and accepted the return income by allowing the claim at Rs. 47,48,027/- and determining total income at Rs. 56,79,096/-. During the course of original assessment proceeding the AO has issued several notices Under section 142(1) and 143(2) from time to time and called the details with respect of claim of the assessee, which is placed on record in Paper Boo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tire donation for constructing community hall for devotee and building fund and area development and maintenance fund by making arrangement at the entry point in temple premises a box specifically naming box collection for building fund and area development and maintenance. 12. The Ld. AR also drawn our attention to the assessment order in which clearly mentioned that (i) The case was selected under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee 18/09/2017 which was duly served on the assessee. After change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee on 04/12/2017, (ii) In response these notices Shri Abhishek Patni C.A. duly authorized by the assessee and Shri Vasant Bhagwanji Yede Secretary of the trust attended from time to time and made compliances which are placed on record. Books of accounts of the assessee are duly audited as required under provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. (ii) the assessee is a charitable trust and it exists for the remembrance of Shri Bhojaji Maharaj and to arrange food charities for economically needed people, Gross receipt for the year under consideration is Rs. 65,95,200/-. It derives income from Rent, Interest, sale of ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitation provided for under sub-s. (2) of s. 263 of the Act would being to run from the date of the order of assessment i.e. 26/02/2017. The revision jurisdiction having, thus, been invoked by the CIT(E) beyond the period of limitation, it was wholly without jurisdiction rendering the entire proceedings a nullity. 15. The counsel for the assessee placed reliance on following judgments 1. 2024 Tax Pub(DT) 2556 (Raj-HC) Jainsons Agrochem Industries -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2. (2023) 454 ITR 811 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs.- Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. 3. Judgment of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench dated 04/07/2024 vide ITA No. 244/Rpr/2024 in case of Hotel Babylon Continental (P) Ltd. -Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4. Judgment of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur 'B' Bench, Jaipur dated 28/01/2025 vide ITA No. 1014/Jpr/2024 in case of Shiv Vegpro (P) Ltd. -Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5. (2024) 266 ITR 694 (Bom. HC - Panji Bench) Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Anderson Marine & Sons (P) Ltd. 6. (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC) Commissioner of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 263 proceedings and the period of limitation provided for under sub-s. (2) of s. 263 of the Act which would run from the date of the original assessment order. The revision jurisdiction having, thus, been invoked by the CIT(E) beyond the period of limitation, which is wholly without jurisdiction rendering the entire proceedings a nullity. 19. Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observation read alongwith the judgment cited by the assessee, we are of the view that it is only in a case where the issues before the CIT(E) at the time of exercising powers under s. 263 of the Act related to the subject-matter of original assessment and the issue were already discussed, the same would not bring the order of assessment within the realm of the jurisdiction of the CIT(E) under s. 263 of the Act. It is also admitted fact that period of limitation for exercising jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act would invoke from the date of the original assessment order and the proceedings initiate u/s. 263 were barred by limitation. 20. Even on merits of the case the entire issue has been discussed in the original assessment proceedings and the assessment were completed u/s. 143(3) by ac....